Talk:Law of Puerto Rico

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Puerto Rico Stub‑class High‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economic impact

The entire section on economic impact is absolute nonsense and offensive to non common law lawyers, if it were true most European countries (which are civilian legal systems), the entire of South America and China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan etc... would all be 'economically stunted'. There are moreover no references and its quite obvious to me that the section was written by a common law trained lawyer or much much more likely law student. At either rate the comments are infantile, unproven and offensive to lawyers from either civilian or mixed jurisdictions (such as myself). Consequently I'm deleting it, if someone wants to write a section on economic impact the least they can do is back it up with citations, to my knowledge the area of economic impact of civilian vs common vs mixed jurisdictions is controversial and so it would be an interesting article. From a US point of view the same criticisms of products and services not being introduced into Puerto Rico, having to retain local counsel etc... would apply to Louisiana but in the article on Louisiana law no one has written a similar section. Consequently I conclude that as it stands though there is no reason to let the section remain. 81.157.117.111 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be removed. It has been challenged, no sources have been forthcoming, and hence it has been removed. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Int21h (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV and accuracy

@Ahnoneemoos: After trimming some material and changing some phrasing, I have removed the tags marking this article as having systemic bias and factual inaccuracy. I think those problems have been fixed, but if you or anyone else still has concerns, please mention them on the talk page and feel free to ping me. -- Beland (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]